Introduction

Hillsborough County Public Schools — the third largest school district in the state — had the highest number of low-performing schools in 2022-23, according to the Florida Department of Education.

Each year the FLDOE grades Florida public schools on a scale from A to F based on a number of factors, including state standardized assessments and graduation rates. Typically these grades take into account year-over-year improvements and other adjustments. However, in 2022-23 the department released a new assessment regime. For that reason, year-over-year improvement was not included in that year’s school grade, and the grades were deemed “informational.”

Without improvement bonuses, the new grades exposed just how far behind many Hillsborough schools really were. Thirty-two of the district’s 219 public schools received a “D” or “F” grade. That’s more than any other district and among the highest rates when adjusted for student population.

Hillsborough also had 57 “A” schools, some of which performed very well on state assessments. The district’s (relatively) bimodal distribution of achievement means a bigger gap between the “winners” and “losers” in the district, compared to other large districts.

My coauthor (Marlene Sokol) and I were asked to dig into what sets the poor-performing schools apart from their more successful counterparts. We’ve interviewed teachers, parents and administrators about why their schools are falling behind. Their insights, and the available data, have informed to the analysis presented below.

Our hope is to find experts in education research and policy to help give context to (and guide) our analysis moving forward.

Student Demographics

We hope to convey to readers that the students at the 32 D/F schools are starting from behind. The students were largely from lower-income families and did not receive adequate preparation for kindergarten. Once they arrive at school, they tend to have more discipline and attendance issues.

The income and race gap in education outcomes in Hillsborough is nothing new. Stanford’s Educational Opportunity Project, which looked at standardized test scores from 2008-09 through 2017-18, found that Black students were 1.38 grades behind their white peers in Hillsborough public schools (state average 1.16 years). Poor students were 0.94 grades behind their non-poor peers (state average 0.61 grades).

However, the district knew all of these factors and have not provided the staffing or resources to adequately address the problem, according to teachers and administrators.

Higher share of economically disadvantaged students.

Schools that received a “D” or “F” grade were more likely to have a higher share of economically disadvanteged students, who received free or reduced price lunch. District wide, roughly 81% of students were economically disadvantaged, on average. At “A” schools the share was 40%, on average. Every “D” and “F” school was 100% low-income.

The Florida Department of Education defines students who received free or reduced-price lunch as economially disadvantaged. The majority of schools that received a “B” or “C” grade were also 100% economically disadvantaged.

Low-performing schools had a higher share of low-income students
Mean share of economically disadvantaged students, by school type and 2022-23 baseline grade.
Grade Schools Share Low-Income
Elementary
A 34 39.6%
B 22 89.1%
C 54 98.4%
D/F 27 100.0%
High
A 7 41.4%
B 6 74.3%
C 14 95.1%
Middle
A 16 40.6%
B 9 78.8%
C 23 96.2%
D/F 6 100.0%

To-dos:

  • Pull median income for households zoned for each school.

Higher share of minority students.

Roughly three-quarters of Hillsborough public school students are minority (Hispanic or non-white). At “D” schools, that share is 90% and at “F” schools 97%, on average. About half of students at “A” schools are minorities.

About 60% of Hillsborough residents under age 18 were minorities in 2022, according to the U.S. Census. This might suggest that white students were more likely to attend charter or private schools in Hillsborough.

Low-performing schools had a higher share of minority students
Mean share of minority students, by school type and 2022-23 baseline grade.
Grade Schools Share Minority
Elementary
A 34 51.2%
B 22 70.7%
C 54 79.8%
D/F 27 91.0%
High
A 7 50.8%
B 6 64.1%
C 14 80.5%
Middle
A 16 54.8%
B 9 71.1%
C 23 81.4%
D/F 6 86.3%

To-dos:

  • Pull school demographics by race and ethnicity. What to achievement gaps look like when we drill down into race and ethnicity?

Students starting from behind.

In the fall, the state assess kindergarten students to determine their starting point. This data indicates that students who arrive at poor performing schools are starting from further behind their peers at better performing schools.

At “A” schools, nearly 70% of kindergarten students arrive prepared. At “D” and “F” schools the rate is roughly 30%.

Source: FLDOE, Florida Assessment of Student Thinking (FAST)

Students at low-performing schools arrived underprepared relative to their peers
Mean share of students ready for kindegarten, by 2022-23 baseline grade.
Grade Schools Share Ready for Kindegarten
A 40 69.5%
B 23 48.4%
C 56 37.9%
D/F 28 30.3%

Student discipline

Teachers and principals at lower performing schools mentioned discipline issues again and again. What data is available supports their observation that students who attend lower-performing schools struggle with discipline more than students at higher-performing schools. We looked at three data sources:

  • FLDOE Student Discipline Data, which tracks discipline outcomes (e.g., in-school suspension, expulsion, physical restraint).

  • FLDOE Student Environment Safety Incident Reporting (SESIR) Data, which tracks behavior by type (e.g., fighting, alcohol, harassment).

  • Police call data (Tampa Police Department)

Discipline Data, 2022-23

Adjusting for student population, lower-performing schools reported more disciplinary actions, on average. The disparity was largest for out-of-school suspensions and proportionate disparity was highest among younger children. Among elementary schools, “A” schools reported roughly one out-of-school suspension per 100 students in 2022-23. “D” elementary schools reported 5.4 and “F” schools reported 7.4.

Discipline actions at low-performing schools

Racial disparities in suspension rates have been extensively documented nationwide, and some of this disparity between high- and low-performing schools may be a function of racial bias. A recent study from the American Psychological Association highlights the recursive impact of punishment, self-perception and academic success.

However, further analysis of racial disparity in discipline is beyond the scope of this project.

Lower-performing schools reported a higher incidence of discipline actions
Average number of disciple actions per 100 students, 2022-23
Grade Suspension Out-of-School Suspension In-School Placement in Alternative Educational Setting Physical Restraint Mechanical Restraint
High
A 6.0 12.2 0.3 0.0 0.0
B 8.3 18.0 0.4 0.0 0.0
C 16.6 21.3 1.4 0.0 0.0
Middle
A 5.3 6.0 0.3 0.0 0.0
B 14.7 17.1 0.7 0.1 0.0
C 23.4 19.3 1.1 0.0 0.0
D/F 26.9 17.1 1.8 0.0 0.0
Elementary
A 0.9 0.8 0.0 0.1 0.0
B 2.0 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0
C 3.3 1.0 0.0 0.1 0.0
D/F 5.7 1.2 0.0 0.1 0.0
Note: Data is suppressed for values under 10. Suppressed values are assumed to equal five in this analysis. Missing values are assumed to equal zero.

Student Environment Safety Incident Reporting (SESIR) Data, 2022-23

School discipline data indicates that low-performing schools experience substantially more behavioral issues than higher achieving schools, adjusted for students population and school type. This fits with anecdotal evidence from teachers and administrators who pointed to classroom disruptions as a major impediment to learning.

Elementary schools which received an “A” reported about 0.7 incidents per 100 students, on average, during the 2021-22 school year. Elementary schools that received a “D” reported 4.5 per 100 and those that received an “F” reported 9 per 100.

The trend is similar when restricted to only incidents that were reported to law enforcement officers. “A” elementary schools reported 0.1 incidents per 100 students, “D” and “F” schools reported roughly .5 per 100 students, on average.

The pattern generally holds at middle, high and combination schools as well - with incidents per capita increasing as school grade falls.

NOTES:

  • A very simple regression analysis indicates that that low-performing schools weren’t any more or less likely refer an incident to law enforcement. Likely a topic for further analysis once 2022-23 data is available.

  • Over the years we’ve heard that SESIR data can be unreliable, with some administrators encouraging staff not to report data.

  • The data includes some outliers with a large number of incidents. All of the outliers were middle schools, which received Bs or Cs. Greco Middle School, which received a C, reported 5 incidents for every 10 students in 2021-22. Giunta, Young, Jennings, McLane and Dowdell middle schools all reported more than 2 incidents per 100 students despite all earning a “C” grade. We’re unsure if this is due to school policy or underlying behavioral issues, or a combination of both.

Low-performing schools had more behavioral disruptions.
Mean number of incidents per 100 students, by school type and 2022-23 baseline grade.
Grade Schools Incidents Incidents Reported to LEO
Elementary
A 68 0.25 0.01
B 44 0.70 0.05
C 108 0.61 0.01
D/F 54 2.16 0.07
Middle
A 32 0.84 0.02
B 18 3.23 0.26
C 46 4.94 0.26
D/F 12 6.12 0.50

Source: FLDOE School Environmental Safety Incident Report (SESIR)

Tampa Police Department calls, 2022-23

Tampa Police Department data supports the finding that lower-performing schools tend to have more police-involved disciplinary incidents. Adams Middle School, which received a “D”, had 31 calls for violent activity. Sligh Middle schools, also a “D”, had 27 calls for drug possession - mostly marijuana.

There were outliers, like Freedom High School, a “C” school that had 49 drug-related calls and 28 violence-related calls.

Again, it’s unclear whether this is driven by school policy or actually reflective of underlying behavioral issues, or a combination of both.

Police calls for Tampa public schools
Tampa Police Department calls, categorized by synopsis type
school_name grade students drugs violence disturbance theft sex crime trespassing mental health weapon
Middle
ADAMS MIDDLE SCHOOL D/F 593 4 31 6 — 2 1 — —
MONROE MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL D/F 412 6 7 1 6 — — — —
SLIGH MIDDLE SCHOOL D/F 606 27 5 2 8 — — — —
SULPHUR SPRINGS K-8 SCHOOL D/F 610 8 6 3 1 — 1 2 —
DR CARTER G WOODSON K-8 SCHOOL C 1023 1 12 1 2 — 1 — —
MADISON MIDDLE SCHOOL C 563 12 9 2 2 — — 5 —
MEMORIAL MIDDLE SCHOOL C 600 1 3 — 1 2 — 1 —
ORANGE GROVE MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL C 498 — 3 — 3 — — — —
STEWART MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL C 800 3 4 4 2 — — — 2
YOUNG MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL C 443 4 8 3 — 1 2 1 —
FRANKLIN MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL B 325 — 5 6 — 1 — — 2
LIBERTY MIDDLE SCHOOL B 1081 3 9 2 — 1 — 1 —
BENITO MIDDLE SCHOOL A 1017 1 7 4 9 — 1 4 2
COLEMAN MIDDLE SCHOOL A 988 1 2 9 — — 1 3 —
FERRELL MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL A 431 — 1 — 1 — — — 4
RAMPELLO K-8 MAGNET SCHOOL A 738 — — — — — 3 — 1
ROLAND PARK K-8 MAGNET SCHOOL A 842 2 — — — — 1 — —
WILLIAMS MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL A 835 — 5 — 2 — — — —
WILSON MIDDLE SCHOOL A 612 1 — — 3 — — — —
High
BLAKE HIGH SCHOOL C 1537 3 13 11 3 1 2 2 4
CHAMBERLAIN HIGH SCHOOL C 1262 4 11 9 8 — 3 3 —
FREEDOM HIGH SCHOOL C 1837 49 28 5 2 — 2 — —
HILLSBOROUGH HIGH SCHOOL C 1891 4 23 11 21 3 8 1 5
JEFFERSON HIGH SCHOOL C 1322 6 3 2 1 1 — 1 —
MIDDLETON HIGH SCHOOL C 1511 3 19 9 2 2 4 5 12
PLANT HIGH SCHOOL A 2507 5 3 2 2 — — 2 —
ROBINSON HIGH SCHOOL A 1354 2 1 6 11 — 2 3 —

Student absenteeism

Florida Department of Education records the share of students who are absent 21 days or more and who absent 10 percent of classes or more. Regardless of metric, low-performing schools have more than twice the share of students chronically absent, compared to “A” schools.

Teachers and administrators have pointed to a number of root causes, including: student health and parent work conflicts. Teachers also told us some students and parents at low-performing schools don’t see any point in attending school and this sentiment increased notably since the pandemic.

Low-performing schools had higher rates of absenteeism
Mean percent of students absent, by school type and 2022-23 baseline grade.
Grade Schools Absent 10 percent or more Absent 21 day or more
Elementary
A 34 17.3% 9.0%
B 22 28.9% 16.1%
C 54 35.6% 20.4%
D/F 27 45.2% 26.5%
High
A 7 26.9% 18.5%
B 6 33.6% 22.9%
C 14 47.2% 32.4%
Middle
A 16 17.9% 10.6%
B 9 32.0% 19.5%
C 23 42.5% 26.4%
D/F 6 49.2% 30.1%
 
## # A tibble: 8 × 8
## # Groups:   type [2]
##   type       Grade diff_21_days diff_10_days pct_10pct pct_21days pct_10pct_pre
##   <chr>      <chr>        <dbl>        <dbl>     <dbl>      <dbl>         <dbl>
## 1 Elementary A           0.0516       0.0870     0.173     0.0903        0.0857
## 2 Elementary B           0.0903       0.137      0.289     0.161         0.153 
## 3 Elementary C           0.112        0.159      0.356     0.204         0.201 
## 4 Elementary D/F         0.133        0.170      0.452     0.265         0.282 
## 5 Middle     A           0.0688       0.101      0.179     0.106         0.0779
## 6 Middle     B           0.128        0.190      0.320     0.195         0.138 
## 7 Middle     C           0.121        0.173      0.425     0.264         0.246 
## 8 Middle     D/F         0.149        0.210      0.492     0.301         0.284 
## # ℹ 1 more variable: pct_21days_pre <dbl>

To-dos:

  • Compare absenteeism gap by school grade over time. Has the gap between high-achieving and low-performing schools widened since the pandemic?

Source: Florida Department of Education

Teachers

Teachers and administrators mentioned again and again that lower-performing schools lack experienced and consistent staff necessary to address learning and behavioral issues. The numbers confirm that teachers at lower-performing schools tend to be younger and more likely to be teaching a subject they are not certified in.

It also appears that turnover is higher at lower-performing schools (analysis in progress.)

Less experienced teachers

During the 2022-23 school year, teachers at lower-performing schools were slightly younger and had less experience with Hillsborough County Schools than their peers at higher-achieving schools, on average. The differences are small, but statistically significant.

The average teacher in “D” and “F” schools was 43 with 8.8 years of experience in Hillsborough. In other schools, the average teacher was 44 with 11.7 years of experience.

While 19% of teachers at “A” schools had less than three years of experience, that share was over 30% at “D” and “F” schools.

Source: Hillsborough County Public Schools

Higher reliance on substitute teachers

Administrators at lower-performing schools indicated that staffing shortages mean they frequently relied on substitute teachers. Hillsborough district uses a private company to provide substitute teachers. Data from substitute-staffing firm Kelly Education, shows that lower-performing schools relied on substitutes more often than higher-performing schools, on average.

Lower-performing schools relied on substitute teachers more than high-performing schools
Average number of substitute teacher days and teacher hours per 100 students, 2022-23
Grade Schools Substitute Days Substitute Hours
Elementary
A 34 51.7 372.5
B 22 55.8 402.9
C 54 75.9 560.0
D/F 27 99.6 741.9
High
A 7 37.8 272.9
B 6 43.9 318.5
C 14 59.6 435.8
Middle
A 16 51.1 365.8
B 9 52.0 365.9
C 22 69.4 514.0
D/F 6 91.7 682.6
Note: Substitute days is defined as any day in which a substitute worked, regardless of number of hours.

Normalizing for the number of students, Elementary schools that scored a “D” or “F” relied on subs more than twice as often as “A” schools, on average. Middle schools that scored a “D” had 2.2 times the number of sub days and 2.4 times the number of sub hours than “A” schools.

Substiute Days and Hours at D/F Schools

Notes:

  • Magnet programs are identified with a different school number in the Kelly Education data. I combine substitute days and hours for regular and magnet programs at each school.

  • Some lines indicate a negative number of days worked and negative billed amount. I subtract these days and hours from the total count at each school.

Higher reliance on “out of field” teachers

Similar to substitute teachers, administrators said they were more likely to have teachers covering “out of field” that they were not certified to teach. Hillsborough district schools are required to inform parents when a teacher was covering a class they were not certified to teach.

Of the roughly 1,200 out of field noticed sent out during the 2022-23 school year, roughly 20% were at “D” and “F” schools. Those schools represent roughly 9% of the student body.

Higher turnover rate among teachers

Schools with higher turnover of teaching staff face are more unstable. Hillsborough’s “D” and “F” schools lost 43% of instructional staff (teachers, coaches and counselors) from the 2021-22 school year to the 2022-23 school year, on average. It’s a pattern that long preceded the low performance in 2022-23.

Lower-performing schools struggled to retain teachers
Percent of teaching staff in 2022-23 who taught in the same school for 1 and 3 years.

On average, just two-thirds of teachers at “D” and “F” elementary schools in 2022-23 were teaching at the school the year before. That’s compared to nearly 80% at “A” schools.

Roughly 42% of teachers at “D” and “F” elementary schools in 2022-23 had been teaching at the school for three years - since the 2019-20 school year. At “A” schools the rate was 66%.

Lower performing schools experienced more staff turnover, on average
Share of staff returning during the 2022-23 school year.
Grade Schools Returning at least 3 years Returning from previous year
Elementary
A 34 65.2% 78.6%
B 22 57.4% 74.4%
C 53 53.4% 71.7%
D/F 27 41.2% 64.6%
High
A 7 65.8% 81.4%
B 6 64.9% 79.3%
C 14 57.3% 76.6%
Middle
A 14 69.8% 81.5%
B 9 63.2% 75.0%
C 21 47.6% 67.3%
D/F 6 33.3% 52.6%

There is a relationship between student performance and teacher stability. The relationship is slightly stronger for three-year stability than one-year. There are schools that buck the trend. Sheehy and Potter retained over 60% of staff over three years despite receiving an “F” grade.

School administration

Low stay rates.

Teachers and administrators told us that they struggle to keep higher-performing students. School stay rates support this conclusion. Elementary schools that got an “A” had stay rates of roughly 84%, on average. Those that received an “D” had a stay rate of 57% and those that had an “F” had a 61% stay rates.

Teachers said that losing kids is demoralizing for the students and teachers who remain at the school, and reinforces the message that they are somehow failing. It’s not clear from the assessment data whether students who opt out of their neighborhood school are higher performing than their peers.

Students were more likely to opt out of attending lower-performing schools
Mean stay rates, by school type and 2022-23 baseline grade.
Grade Schools Stay
Elementary
A 31 82.3%
B 21 68.9%
C 44 66.5%
D/F 26 58.7%
High
A 7 91.2%
B 7 87.6%
C 14 68.6%
Middle
A 10 81.5%
B 5 70.8%
C 22 58.8%
D/F 6 52.6%

All but three of the “D” and “F” schools had stay rates below the district average or roughly 70%.

Source: Hillsborough County Public Schools

High administration turnover.

Nearly half of the 32 lower-performing schools had new principals at the start of the 2022-23 schools year. That year, 20 of the 32 principals had less than three years of experience in the role.

We’ve heard that these positions turnover rapidly and, while arguably the toughest and most important jobs in the district, are filled by people who do not yet have the experience required to succeed.

School closures.

Some of the low-performing schools were set to close at the end of the 2022-23 or 2023-24 school year. We’ve heard that closing the schools demoralized teachers and staff and may have hurt performance on standardized assessments that year. Analysis in progress.

Schools are either too big to manage or too small to adapt.

Principals at poor performing schools have complained that their schools are either too large to manage or too small to adapt to unforeseen circumstances.

Schools that are too large are more likely to suffer from behavioral issues, according to one principal.

Schools that are too small can’t find staff to cover a class or take on extra duties when a teacher is sick, goes on leave or leaves the school.

Analysis in progress.

Class sizes are too large

Student-teacher ratio data from the National Center for Education Statistics does not indicate that lower-performing schools had a higher student-teacher ratio than better-performing schools. There may be other measures we should discuss here.

Based on these simple averages, the average number of students do not exceed the maximum number of students per teacher set my Florida Legislature in 2003.

Grade Student to teacher ratio
Elementary
A 14.8
B 14.5
C 14.5
D/F 14.2
High
A 22.8
B 21.9
C 20.5
Middle
A 17.9
B 17.9
C 18.3
D/F 18.2

Have test scores improved in 2023-24?

In February, the district released PM2 results for the 2023-24 school year. We can compare the share of students who score a level 3 and up in 2023-24 to the shares the year before.

Results are released by grade for math and English. I combine results for each subject across grades for each Hillsborough school.

Math scores fell at the majority of D/F schools
Share of students scoring level 3 and above on PM2 exams
school_name 2022-23 2023-24 Change (percentage points)
Elementary
District Average 29.4% 29.4% 0.0
OAK PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23.1% 16.0% −7.1
KENLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 12.3% 6.4% −5.9
GRAHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 12.8% 7.4% −5.5
MILES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 13.8% 10.4% −3.4
IPPOLITO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 15.0% 12.5% −2.5
BROWARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 13.7% 11.8% −1.9
WIMAUMA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 14.1% 12.5% −1.6
EDISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 9.9% 8.4% −1.4
KIMBELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7.6% 6.3% −1.4
RUSKIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11.5% 10.3% −1.2
YATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 14.2% 13.2% −1.0
JACKSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8.2% 7.3% −0.9
MANGO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 12.0% 11.2% −0.9
SHAW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11.8% 11.2% −0.6
FOSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8.6% 9.9% 1.4
ROBLES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6.6% 8.0% 1.4
JAMES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6.9% 8.6% 1.7
TWIN LAKES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6.4% 8.4% 2.0
LOCKHART ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL 8.0% 10.3% 2.3
WITTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7.7% 10.0% 2.3
POTTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 6.7% 9.7% 3.0
PALM RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 7.6% 10.7% 3.1
SHEEHY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 5.6% 8.7% 3.1
KINGSWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11.3% 16.3% 5.0
LAMB ELEMENTARY 4.1% 11.3% 7.2
BURNEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11.0% 19.9% 8.9
Middle
District Average 35.6% 30.7% −4.9
SULPHUR SPRINGS K-8 SCHOOL 26.2% 14.8% −11.3
ADAMS MIDDLE SCHOOL 17.6% 8.4% −9.1
SLIGH MIDDLE SCHOOL 19.4% 11.7% −7.7
SHIELDS MIDDLE SCHOOL 18.4% 11.4% −7.0
MONROE MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL 16.2% 9.3% −6.8
EISENHOWER MIDDLE SCHOOL 17.1% 12.4% −4.6
English scores were mixed at D/F schools, with roughly half improving and half falling
Share of students scoring level 3 and above on PM2 exams
school_name 2022-23 2023-24 Change (percentage points)
Elementary
District Average 37.9% 35.2% −2.6
LOCKHART ELEMENTARY MAGNET SCHOOL 21.7% 12.7% −9.1
KIMBELL ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 17.9% 9.4% −8.5
TWIN LAKES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 16.1% 8.8% −7.3
BROWARD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 14.8% 8.9% −5.9
JACKSON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 19.8% 13.9% −5.9
IPPOLITO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 19.6% 13.7% −5.9
KINGSWOOD ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 19.0% 13.6% −5.4
OAK PARK ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 19.9% 14.7% −5.2
BURNEY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 21.3% 16.2% −5.1
JAMES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 13.8% 10.0% −3.8
YATES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 23.2% 19.5% −3.7
SHEEHY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 13.3% 10.4% −2.9
MILES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 14.7% 11.8% −2.9
ROBLES ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 10.5% 9.0% −1.5
RUSKIN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 12.4% 12.4% 0.0
WIMAUMA ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 18.3% 18.3% 0.0
POTTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 8.2% 8.3% 0.0
PALM RIVER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 14.3% 14.6% 0.4
GRAHAM ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 14.6% 15.3% 0.8
MANGO ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 16.4% 17.3% 0.9
WITTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11.5% 12.8% 1.2
FOSTER ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 13.6% 14.9% 1.3
EDISON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 11.3% 12.8% 1.4
KENLY ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 12.7% 14.3% 1.7
LAMB ELEMENTARY 14.7% 17.5% 2.8
SHAW ELEMENTARY SCHOOL 9.0% 13.2% 4.1
Middle
District Average 37.6% 39.5% 1.9
EISENHOWER MIDDLE SCHOOL 24.7% 21.3% −3.4
MONROE MIDDLE MAGNET SCHOOL 26.6% 25.0% −1.5
SHIELDS MIDDLE SCHOOL 18.3% 18.6% 0.3
SULPHUR SPRINGS K-8 SCHOOL 12.4% 14.9% 2.5
ADAMS MIDDLE SCHOOL 16.4% 19.8% 3.4
SLIGH MIDDLE SCHOOL 18.9% 28.7% 9.8